Unanimous Jury Verdicts Required For Serious Criminal Convictions -- Supreme Court Rules

[Ron Mexico]

There are also lots of corrupt NBA referees out there, but I don't think picking 12 people and letting them decide if Harden was fouled would make things any better.

I disagree, if we are using the same equivalent. If you gave 12 random people the rule to read and the video to review, and time to discuss it with each other and ask questions to the experts. I think they would do a better job more often than 1 ref.

 

[JimLes]

I disagree, if we are using the same equivalent. If you gave 12 random people the rule to read and the video to review, and time to discuss it with each other and ask questions to the experts. I think they would do a better job more often than 1 ref.

The ref would also do a better job if they could review things, so that's an unfair proposition.

Unless you're not talking about them doing it after the fact.

 

[JimLes]

If it weren't for referendums Utah would never have been able to pass medical MJ or push our state to accept expanded Medicare.

I'd much rather see my fellow citizens elect better leaders who would do all those things without referendums. I'm a much bigger fan of representative democracy than a direct one.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The ref would also do a better job if they could review things, so that's an unfair proposition.

He can do the same. I would still take the 12 random people. It takes 10 seconds to learn the rule in question.

 

[JimLes]

He can do the same. I would still take the 12 random people. It takes 10 seconds to learn the rule in question.

If you haven't played or watched basketball, it would take ages to learn all the context for even a single rule.

And maybe I'm the moron here, but having watched basketball for hundreds of hours a year for the past two and a half decades, I still miss so much stuff live that refs catch. Sure, I sometimes see things the refs have missed, but the ratio is very lopsided. I might rail against the refs after almost every Jazz loss(and some wins), but I can acknowledge that there's a big amount of training that goes into being a ref(training your eyes mostly) that I could not just make up in a few days or weeks.

 

[One Brow]

Having judges decide because they actually have legal training. It's like how surgeons operate because they have training.

Judges can overrule juries when they mistakenly find a person guilty, in the judge's opinion. I believe in many places judge's also perform the sentencing. It's not like they are left out of the loop.

 

[JimLes]

Judges can overrule juries when they mistakenly find a person guilty, in the judge's opinion.

So why not let the judge rule in the first place? My mum let my sister pick the colour for the new paint in our house when she was 16, and then repainted it afterwards because lime green was nauseating. Why let her pick to begin with then?

 

[Ron Mexico]

If you haven't played or watched basketball, it would take ages to learn all the context for even a single rule.

And maybe I'm the moron here, but having watched basketball for hundreds of hours a year for the past two and a half decades, I still miss so much stuff live that refs catch. Sure, I sometimes see things the refs have missed, but the ratio is very lopsided. I might rail against the refs after almost every Jazz loss(and some wins), but I can acknowledge that there's a big amount of training that goes into being a ref(training your eyes mostly) that I could not just make up in a few days or weeks.

No, it would be very easy to explain to anyone a specific rule and incident. No, I dont think you could take 12 random people and make them live refs but that is a whole different situation. Also everyone has seen basketball and knows what it is in the USA and pretty much every country.

Experts are great but they are not the ultimate infallible answer. Keeping people involved in the process helps prevent corruption as well.

Also its impossible to get a judge that isnt biased. Its also in human nature to abuse being in power.

Also I want to be proven guilty without a doubt. I want that to be without a doubt of multiple people. Not 1 person who sees the bad criminals of the worlds each and every day and is jaded by that.

 

[One Brow]

So why not let the judge rule in the first place? My mum let my sister pick the colour for the new paint in our house when she was 16, and then repainted it afterwards because lime green was nauseating. Why let her pick to begin with then?

1) Defendants tend to be poor, and the juror's box is usually dominated by the poor/lower middle class. By contrast, there are very few poor people become judges, and I'd be surprised if there were a lot of poor people on the panels you described that selected judges. It's one way the poor can make themselves heard in the judicial system.
2) It allows for jury nullification.

I agree there are also downsides. Let's not pretend that the the issue is one-sided.

 

[Gameface]

1) Defendants tend to be poor, and the juror's box is usually dominated by the poor/lower middle class. By contrast, there are very few poor people become judges, and I'd be surprised if there were a lot of poor people on the panels you described that selected judges. It's one way the poor can make themselves heard in the judicial system.
2) It allows for jury nullification.

I agree there are also downsides. Let's not pretend that the the issue is one-sided.

Jury nullification, while not always good, is an important part of what I described as the concept that the people are partners in their own governance and are not simply ruled over. It might be the most important practical purpose of being tried by a jury of one's peers. I do feel strongly that the "we're all making these decisions together for the greater good of our society and community" is an extremely important part of jury trials, too.

 

[LogGrad98]

Comparing judges to surgeons, imo, isn't comparable. I get what your saying and all, but I think like studies have shown, experts in their field of study become less effective because of biases.

A judge could know the law better than anyone and still hate black, brown, white or purple people.

What if the judge was super Christian and discredited muslims, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Satanic worshippers?

Knowing the law doesn't mean you can judge alone. That would be a really ****** world imo.

You're not gonna find that with 12 jury members.

To hell with purple people. Unless they are suffocating, then help them.

 

[LogGrad98]

He can do the same. I would still take the 12 random people. It takes 10 seconds to learn the rule in question.

Especially if they are impartial. Show them video of the rule, a dozen times when it was already deemed a foul and a dozen when it wasn't, then let them decide. I think you would get a better result. Of course, that would never work for a game situation, but it is applicable to the justice system.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think the purpose of the jury of peers is to remove power from the state over the outcome that would affect individuals and their rights. The founding father had just come from a totalitarian system and saw that, with all their flaws, a jury of peers was far far more fair and just than a court ruled over by appointees of the state. Yes we elect judges but it is far more likely to encounter bias that would affect the outcome directly in a single individual. A jury helps to mitigate that somewhat by hopefully bringing a bit more diversity and seeing through the eyes of the defendant, as @One Brow pointed out, with poor judging poor, etc.